More necropsies will improve patient care: Has the case been made?

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 397-

  Guly, H ^a  

^a DERRIFORD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOPSY; DEATH; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LEARNING; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL STUDENT; MORTALITY; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICIAN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WORKLOAD;

AUTOPSY; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MEDICAL AUDIT; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE;

EID: 29244448697     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2005.016154     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. Shojania KG, Burton EC, McDonald KM, et al. Overestimation of clinical diagnostic performance rates caused by low necropsy rates. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:408-13.
2. Joint Working Party of the Royal College of Pathologists, the Royal College of Physicians of London, and the Royal College of Surgeons of England. The autopsy and audit. London: Royal College or Pathologists, 1991.
3. Burton JL, Underwood JCE. Necropsy practice after the "organ retention scandal": requests, performance and tissue retention. J Clin Pathol 2003;56:537-41.
4. Bauchner H, Vinci R. What have we learned from the Alder Hey affair? BMJ 2001;322:309-10.
5. Kamal IS, Forsyth DR, Jones JR. Does it matter who requests necropsies? Prospective study of effect of clinical audit on rate of requests. BMJ 1997;314:1729.
6. Cameron HM, McGoogan E, Watson H. Necropsy: a yardstick for clinical diagnoses. BMJ 1980;281:985-8.
7. Sonderegger-Iseli K, Burger S, Muntwyler J, et al. Diagnostic errors in three medical eras: a necropsy study. Lancet 2000;355:2027-31.